Discuss and rate the last movie you watched

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NEXT
 

First Love
There's always a moment of resignation when I'm about to watch a new movie by Takashi Miike. With the exception of Kitano I don't really trust any contemporary Japanese filmmaker to dip sooner or later into icky territory if the movie presents itself as a comedy. Sure enough, there're inevitably a couple of pervs that are easily baited by the smell of, uh, "juices" and are ready to jerk off at any second. And of course, lots of panty shots, because Japan. Other than that it's a fairly conventional comedy of errors piling up (along with bodies) and a simple plan spiraling out of control over the course of a single night involving yakuzas.

I say 'conventional', at least compared to other Miike movies, because there's such a thing as using beats for comedy, and visual gags, and brick jokes, and a rhyme and reason to the way situtions escalate. I enjoyed it and laughed quite a bit but by the end I was tired of how drawn out everything is. People complain about Return of the King having too many endings? This one has like 27 endings. It gets to the point where literall every frame could easily be the closing one but nope, movie chugs on and on.

CoCage:

1.The yautja barely count on the cyborg part any way. Most of their strength is natural, and the only thing cyber about them are the alien/futuristic weapons they use.

Obviously the yautja aren't literal cyborgs, but as a trope, I'd say they fit in. As in:

-Superior strength and speed.

-Operates alone.

-Cloaking.

-Pre-disposition towards bladed weapons

-Honour code

There a lot of Linn Kurosawa fans.

If there are, I haven't seen them.

Sorry, but I hate the RE live action films. Alice became a God Mode Sue, and the series turned in to Resident Evil: Check Out My Hot Wife. They are all bad self insert fan ficsm made in to movies.

I can't really debate that, but I'm far more forgiving. I quite like 1 and 2, 3's okay, haven't seen 4, 5 is terrible, 6 is a guilty pleasure for me.

Finally watched Coco yesterday. Emotional, brilliant movie.

Honestly, hardly any studio has a hit ratio as high as Pixar.

Hawki:

CoCage:

1.The yautja barely count on the cyborg part any way. Most of their strength is natural, and the only thing cyber about them are the alien/futuristic weapons they use.

Obviously the yautja aren't literal cyborgs, but as a trope, I'd say they fit in. As in:

-Superior strength and speed.

-Operates alone.

-Cloaking.

-Pre-disposition towards bladed weapons

-Honour code

I get superior strength, but apart from that, don't see how any of that should be really applies to cyborgs. I mean, cyborgs can use blades, yes, but don't see why that's particularly a thing you'd expect them to do.

Thaluikhain:

I get superior strength, but apart from that, don't see how any of that should be really applies to cyborgs. I mean, cyborgs can use blades, yes, but don't see why that's particularly a thing you'd expect them to do.

Cyborg ninja, not just a cyborg.

Look at Metal Gear for example. Grey Fox easily fits into a yautja-like role.

The Care of the Others
Might as well be titled Babysitter from Hell. Here's the chain of events: Luisa accidentally locks herself out of the apartment were she's supposed to be looking out for a toddler, calls her boyfriend so he can let her in (not sure how) and the toddler consumes something from the boyfriend's wallet, unclear what (some pill I guess) that winds him up in the ICU. So Luisa gets fired and now I'm supposed to give a shit about her because she feels guilty and misses the kid. How is all of this not equally her fault, if not moreso? I like a good old spirals-into-depression plot but I never cared for the characters, and the flat acting didn't help.

Silvanus:
Finally watched Coco yesterday. Emotional, brilliant movie.

Honestly, hardly any studio has a hit ratio as high as Pixar.

I thought Inside Out sounded like one of the stupidest ideas out. Pixar showed me wrong.

Dolemite
The one and only, which I guess is out in theaters again because of the Netflix movie. Rudy Ray "Dolemite" Moore stars as a pimp fresh out of jail looking to get revenge on another pimp. Some bent cops and politicians get in the way too, but the plot is as threadbare as that. It's entertaining enough but you can only laugh at boom mics, pretend karate and funny zooms/reaction shots for so long. The acting sucks of course but the "Dolemite" character is funny in his loud, outrageous way. Lady Reed on the other hand looks terrified in every scene. The Netflix biopic is vastly more entertaining and makes for an actually good movie.

Chernobyl Diaries:

Standard survival horror zombie film. 6 tourists decide to sneak into the abandoned city Pripya for some extreme tourism, only to be stuck there do to the wires in their van getting chewed up. As the group tries to escape, one by one they are attacked by all feral dogs, mutant fish, and mutant humans stalking them.

While it has some good suspense here and there, it doesn't have many good scares, and it has the main flaw of the group all being a bunch of idiots. I'm not saying you have to be a rocket scientist, but any dumber and I think some of the characters would be the horny pot smoking teenagers in a Friday THE 13TH film.

THe old cliche of radiation being magic with how the humans have mutated isn't that hard a sell for me as I grew up with Godzilla, and If I can buy the old Showa era and Shin Godzilla, then I can let this slide. THose of you who can't, get your rage on.

Not much gore although you do see some of the remains of the tour guide. Most of its R rating is from the F bombs that get dropped. This said, if you have the same amount of investment in the characters as I did, you wish they had a more gory end to make things interesting.

Also the CGI bear: Uwi Bolle bad.

If you need something for bad movie night, this is watchable and it doesn't make you dumber for watching it.

Joker Wow. 10/10

Last Christmas (5/10)

Last Christmas is a romcom where there's too much rom and and not enough com.

You may say "well that's rather subjective," and yes, you're right. But bear in mind, the trailers sold this as a funny film, and while there is humour, there's far more romance overall. Especially towards the end, where we get into outright schmultz and melodrama. What's telling is that the film initially uses a flashback sequence, but then drops the sequence after its first two uses of the format.

So, here we have Emilia Clarke playing "Kate/Katarina," a girl from Yugoslavia who now has a miserable life in London after coming here after the war. Nevermind the fact that she doesn't sound Slavic at all while her parents do, desptie being around 9 when she left the country. Also she works in a Christmas shop under Michelle Yeoh, full-time. I don't know if it's open all year or just in the Christmas period. Her life's miserable, and it's been miserable after she had a heart transplant and since then, hasn't felt whole. But a guy turns up in her life, and gee, will she discover the value of friendship, the Christmas spirit, and fix her life? If you answered "no" to any of those questions, you're either a dumbass, or thought the film would do something original.

I mean, it isn't bad, don't get me wrong, but it is predictable, following a well-trod formula with well-trod tropes, and while the cast are certainly likeable enough, they can't transcend the formula they're in. Those who might have seen this film might ask "what about the twist?" To which I say "oh, you mean that twist I guessed at in the trailer? How I guessed correclty?" Well, yay for the twist, which uses mechanics that I'm no sure how they even work. Maybe I'm thinking too much about the mechanics of magic, but still...

Also, why's this called "Last Christmas?" The film begins at least a few weeks before Christmas, and ends on December 25th. It isn't anyone's "last Christmas," and it isn't using a flashback format bar those quirks at the start, so it isn't a case of the protagonist looking back on it. I mean, just wondering...oh, and Brexit is a thing. That isn't going to age the film at all.

So, yeah. I had some fun, and had some laughs, but it's really your run of the mill romance story.

Xprimentyl:
Joker Wow. 10/10

Wow indeed. That was the shortest review I've seen. :P

Logan.

It's liked the makers took a hard look at the previous X-Men movies (and superhero films in general) and said "Actually, no, can we make a real movie instead? You know, like Blade runner or something?" And then quite a respectable job of it.

Lost in Translation

The scene with Bill Murray interacting with some elderly person and the two ladies in the back losing their shit was funny. Not enough explosions or car chases. I was impressed with the technology used to deage Scarlett Johansson. At one point in the movie, the main characters are in a hotel room watching a famous italian movie and one of the characters in the movie they're watching says my name. That was another neat coincidence after seeing Blade Runner earlier this month.

Better than Dark Fate/10

Thaluikhain:
Logan.

It's liked the makers took a hard look at the previous X-Men movies (and superhero films in general) and said "Actually, no, can we make a real movie instead? You know, like Blade runner or something?" And then quite a respectable job of it.

I love Logan and is an important moment in comic book movies, but make "a real movie". That phrase is full of shit. Not to be confrontational, but I hate that phrase. It's aggravating; it's pretentious. It implies that the genre has not done anything at all to improve or move the medium forward. To me, that is intellectually dishonest and untrue. There are great comic book films out there, but like all things, Sturgeon's Law applies. The X-Men moves haven't had the greatest run, and that is understandable. The best ones have little to do with the actual team. The Deadpool movies and Logan are the most successful ones. Though Logan's main problem is that it's once again all about Wolverine, though actually justified this time. When we already had that with X2, X3, Origins, and The Wolverine. Oh, and Logan can be depressing as fuck. This is movie I can't watch multiple times in a row. I know when my mom saw it (huge Hugh Jackman fan), she almost never touched it since.

Logan is basically the Dark Knight Returns and The Last of Us of X-Men. Old, grizzled, cynical, bad ass coming out of retirement, little girl companion, and "one more time/ one last job".

I finally got around to seeing Joker

I liked the film. The person I went to see it with hated it. If you haven't seen it yet, I highly recommend that you make the time to do so.

Rating: Society/10

CoCage:
I love Logan and is an important moment in comic book movies, but make "a real movie". That phrase is full of shit. Not to be confrontational, but I hate that phrase. It's aggravating; it's pretentious. It implies that the genre has not done anything at all to improve or move the medium forward. To me, that is intellectually dishonest and untrue.

Certainly. Well, I'm not seeing (off the top of my head) how superhero films have moved the medium of filmmaking forwards, but then I don't see why they are obliged to. I'm currently watching Return of the Caped Crusaders, which is the best Batman film in years (yes it is), and it's a good movie, despite not being a great work of art.

However, Logan seems intended as a deliberate rejection of the type of movie that made up the rest of the X-Men franchise (and superhero films in general), which implies something about how the rest were viewed. Whether or not you or I think Logan is a real movie and the other X-Men films aren't, I'd hardly be surprised if that's what the people behind it felt.

Logan was certainly depressing, yes, but then that's a common theme of "award bait", which is only slightly removed from "real movie".

CM156:
I finally got around to seeing Joker

I liked the film. The person I went to see it with hated it. If you haven't seen it yet, I highly recommend that you make the time to do so.

Rating: Society/10

Thaluikhain:

CoCage:
I love Logan and is an important moment in comic book movies, but make "a real movie". That phrase is full of shit. Not to be confrontational, but I hate that phrase. It's aggravating; it's pretentious. It implies that the genre has not done anything at all to improve or move the medium forward. To me, that is intellectually dishonest and untrue.

Certainly. Well, I'm not seeing (off the top of my head) how superhero films have moved the medium of filmmaking forwards, but then I don't see why they are obliged to. I'm currently watching Return of the Caped Crusaders, which is the best Batman film in years (yes it is), and it's a good movie, despite not being a great work of art.

However, Logan seems intended as a deliberate rejection of the type of movie that made up the rest of the X-Men franchise (and superhero films in general), which implies something about how the rest were viewed. Whether or not you or I think Logan is a real movie and the other X-Men films aren't, I'd hardly be surprised if that's what the people behind it felt.

Logan was certainly depressing, yes, but then that's a common theme of "award bait", which is only slightly removed from "real movie".

I never said superhero films were obligated to move the medium forward. Regardless of intentions or lack of intentions, these films, tv shows, and the comic books themselves move forward the representation and variety of superheroes. These genres has created a huge impact on not just US culture, but the world at large. You can't be oblivious to the impacts such things as The Dark Knight, most of the Avengers films, Deadool, Spider Man 1 & 2, Spiderverse, Wonder Woman, Black Panther, and many others. And then the there's the DCAU, and other animated superhero shows and movies too. Don't forget, before all this, between 10-20 years ago, comic book movies were seen as "not serious enough", "too kiddy or nerdy", or not "high art". A bunch of loaded terms made by old men and women. What didn't help was Hollywood did not respect it enough nor cared at time with very few exceptions. TV had more respect superheroes during the 90s than the Hollywood film industry.

Return of the Caped Crusaders is a great film too. It was just nice to have Batman story not be grim dark or depressing. Hell, one of my favorite Batman Shows is the Brave and the Bold for a specific reason.

Just because Logan rejected a majority of the superheroes does not guarantee a good film or anything really. That is the exception, and not the rule. Thankfully, so far, Hollywood has learned from this, as majority of these studios aren't deliberately trying to copy Logan verbatim. And you can have the most "depressing" and "award bait" movie/game/anime and if I don't like it. Tough shit.

CoCage:
I never said superhero films were obligated to move the medium forward. Regardless of intentions or lack of intentions, these films, tv shows, and the comic books themselves move forward the representation and variety of superheroes.

Ah, ok, misread you there.

CoCage:
Just because Logan rejected a majority of the superheroes does not guarantee a good film or anything really. That is the exception, and not the rule. Thankfully, so far, Hollywood has learned from this, as majority of these studios aren't deliberately trying to copy Logan verbatim.

Cynically, I might say they are still playing follow the leader with other films, though I am rather behind on superhero movies at the moment.

The Irishman
Scorsese's best movie since The Departed (and Casino before that). It is simultaneously a return to form and also a reflexion on his filmography. It is "like" Goodfellas in that it is a period piece that is narrated by an outsider, over-the-hill gangster with a tone that suggests he's making the audience complicit. It boasts a huge character roster made up of Scorsese regulars and Sopranos regulars, spans decades and covers historical landmarks, and can go from home-movie conviviality to violence in a heartbeat.

The movie is also nothing like Goodfellas, and I think anybody going in wanting to see Goodfellas 2 is gonna be in for a disappointment. While the movie can naturally segue into humor at any time, it is very much a tragedy rather than a comedy. The movie doesn't jump around like Goodfellas does but tends to ruminate within the same set-piece. The camera movements that present situations in that smooth yet snappy here-you-go waiter-with-a-tray attitude are there, keeping the movie delightfully energized, but not in that wild, ranty Goodfellas way. And even at the height of Sheeran's rise-and-fall story the movie doesn't exactly glamorize the violence or the lifestyle. The prevailing mood is one of guilt, sorrow and bitter maturity. I enjoyed the hell out of it.

10/10

Johnny Novgorod:
The Irishman
Scorsese's best movie since The Departed (and Casino before that). It is simultaneously a return to form and also a reflexion on his filmography. It is "like" Goodfellas in that it is a period piece that is narrated by an outsider, over-the-hill gangster with a tone that suggests he's making the audience complicit. It boasts a huge character roster made up of Scorsese regulars and Sopranos regulars, spans decades and covers historical landmarks, and can go from home-movie conviviality to violence in a heartbeat.

The movie is also nothing like Goodfellas, and I think anybody going in wanting to see Goodfellas 2 is gonna be in for a disappointment. While the movie can naturally segue into humor at any time, it is very much a tragedy rather than a comedy. The movie doesn't jump around like Goodfellas does but tends to ruminate within the same set-piece. The camera movements that present situations in that smooth yet snappy here-you-go waiter-with-a-tray attitude are there, keeping the movie delightfully energized, but not in that wild, ranty Goodfellas way. And even at the height of Sheeran's rise-and-fall story the movie doesn't exactly glamorize the violence or the lifestyle. The prevailing mood is one of guilt, sorrow and bitter maturity. I enjoyed the hell out of it.

10/10

Sadly the movie is screening in a theater far away from my house or usual places I visit.

Looks like I have to wait until the Netflix screening next week.

Hawki:

Xprimentyl:
Joker Wow. 10/10

Wow indeed. That was the shortest review I've seen. :P

Lol, I know, it's just that so much has been said about the film both strongly for and against it, not sure if my two cents were worth the effort of expounding for paragraphs via my phone's clumsy touchscreen interface. But I'm at work at a keyboard now, so I can try to elaborate.

When I first learned this movie was coming out, I rolled my eyes. I'm tired of superhero movies, specifically the interconnected "universes" that just throw celebrities and CGI into a blender and smear the resulting confusingly homogenous mess onto the screen over the course of a couple decades. I had no desire to see this film, but when I learned it was less a hero vehicle and more a film that explored issues of mental health, I became intrigued, and dragged the gf to indulge my curiosity this past weekend.

And I'm glad I did; it's one of the best movies I've seen in a very long time.

I'm not necessarily a fan of the Joker as a character; he tends to range from cartoonish prankster to deranged lunatic but ultimately serves solely as the antithesis of Batman in "Batman movie/TV show/game #1,274," so not very interesting outside of that context. I DID love Ledger's portrayal, but he did nothing to add much in the way of depth to the Joker, just an austere take portraying the Joker as a truly dangerous person and not the familiar, quipping clown prince most other versions make him out to be.

This film removed the Joker from the vacuum of Batman and put him center stage and showed he's not just "the zany villain," but a deeply troubled man who simply let go, gave up, and one who suffers as much as those he'll ultimately make suffer. Phoenix masterfully showed his struggling with being immensely miserable and alone whilst suffering involuntary maniacal laughter and social awkwardness that cause the society he so desperately wants to be a part of to push him farther and farther away. This movie is a tragedy about the loss of Arthur, not a celebration of gaining The Joker, and THAT'S what I feel makes it feel so unique and special.

I've read a few people say that that Phoenix's portrayal makes the Joker come across as pathetic, and those are not inaccurate observations, but I think what they might be missing is how much gravity that lends to the demons the Joker chooses to embrace when he decides the basest interpersonal connections he so pines for are unattainable. The man we know was once so desperately there is lost, and all that remains is the monster, and I love how the movie ended on that note, choosing to not go full-on "Joker" and leaving us to stare at the shell of a man. I know this is a contentious point even for fans of the film, and to each their own, but I'm personally a fan of media that engages me intellectually and isn't afraid to leave me to my imagination.

This movie is touted as an "origin story," so hints at tie-in movies and sequels, but it works perfectly well (if not better) as a standalone dramatic masterpiece. I've seen enough of other Jokers to know where he inexorably goes, so I don't think this Joker's journey gets more interesting from here. At least I don't feel a furthering of this story could be as or more impactful than the tragedy of his downfall that we now have; anything beyond this will dilute the impact of this film.

Samtemdo8:

CM156:
I finally got around to seeing Joker

I liked the film. The person I went to see it with hated it. If you haven't seen it yet, I highly recommend that you make the time to do so.

Rating: Society/10

Poor George. If only he'd had a mobile.

Thaluikhain:

CoCage:
I never said superhero films were obligated to move the medium forward. Regardless of intentions or lack of intentions, these films, tv shows, and the comic books themselves move forward the representation and variety of superheroes.

Ah, ok, misread you there.

CoCage:
Just because Logan rejected a majority of the superheroes does not guarantee a good film or anything really. That is the exception, and not the rule. Thankfully, so far, Hollywood has learned from this, as majority of these studios aren't deliberately trying to copy Logan verbatim.

Cynically, I might say they are still playing follow the leader with other films, though I am rather behind on superhero movies at the moment.

There's always gonna be follow-the-leader with the standard superhero affair. Just look at some of DC/WB past projects (though they finally found what works for them) and the X-men films mentioned earlier. Hell, almost everyone expects a stinger; even in non-Marvel movies. That is really annoying and needs to die now.

Samtemdo8:

Johnny Novgorod:
The Irishman
Scorsese's best movie since The Departed (and Casino before that). It is simultaneously a return to form and also a reflexion on his filmography. It is "like" Goodfellas in that it is a period piece that is narrated by an outsider, over-the-hill gangster with a tone that suggests he's making the audience complicit. It boasts a huge character roster made up of Scorsese regulars and Sopranos regulars, spans decades and covers historical landmarks, and can go from home-movie conviviality to violence in a heartbeat.

The movie is also nothing like Goodfellas, and I think anybody going in wanting to see Goodfellas 2 is gonna be in for a disappointment. While the movie can naturally segue into humor at any time, it is very much a tragedy rather than a comedy. The movie doesn't jump around like Goodfellas does but tends to ruminate within the same set-piece. The camera movements that present situations in that smooth yet snappy here-you-go waiter-with-a-tray attitude are there, keeping the movie delightfully energized, but not in that wild, ranty Goodfellas way. And even at the height of Sheeran's rise-and-fall story the movie doesn't exactly glamorize the violence or the lifestyle. The prevailing mood is one of guilt, sorrow and bitter maturity. I enjoyed the hell out of it.

10/10

Sadly the movie is screening in a theater far away from my house or usual places I visit.

Looks like I have to wait until the Netflix screening next week.

Definitely recommend watching it in theaters if you can, but that goes more for the length of the movie (3 and a half hours!) and the enhancement of the overall experience rather than its spectacle. One of the best movies I've seen all year in theaters is Leap of Faith, which is "just" an interview of William Friedkin mixed in with some Exorcist footage. Some things just don't have the same spell to them even if you watch them on the biggest TV you can find.

Having said that I would've liked an interlude in a 210 minute movie. I refuse to take bathroom breaks while the movie's going.

Johnny Novgorod:

Samtemdo8:

Johnny Novgorod:
The Irishman
Scorsese's best movie since The Departed (and Casino before that). It is simultaneously a return to form and also a reflexion on his filmography. It is "like" Goodfellas in that it is a period piece that is narrated by an outsider, over-the-hill gangster with a tone that suggests he's making the audience complicit. It boasts a huge character roster made up of Scorsese regulars and Sopranos regulars, spans decades and covers historical landmarks, and can go from home-movie conviviality to violence in a heartbeat.

The movie is also nothing like Goodfellas, and I think anybody going in wanting to see Goodfellas 2 is gonna be in for a disappointment. While the movie can naturally segue into humor at any time, it is very much a tragedy rather than a comedy. The movie doesn't jump around like Goodfellas does but tends to ruminate within the same set-piece. The camera movements that present situations in that smooth yet snappy here-you-go waiter-with-a-tray attitude are there, keeping the movie delightfully energized, but not in that wild, ranty Goodfellas way. And even at the height of Sheeran's rise-and-fall story the movie doesn't exactly glamorize the violence or the lifestyle. The prevailing mood is one of guilt, sorrow and bitter maturity. I enjoyed the hell out of it.

10/10

Sadly the movie is screening in a theater far away from my house or usual places I visit.

Looks like I have to wait until the Netflix screening next week.

Definitely recommend watching it in theaters if you can, but that goes more for the length of the movie (3 and a half hours!) and the enhancement of the overall experience rather than its spectacle. One of the best movies I've seen all year in theaters is Leap of Faith, which is "just" an interview of William Friedkin mixed in with some Exorcist footage. Some things just don't have the same spell to them even if you watch them on the biggest TV you can find.

Having said that I would've liked an interlude in a 210 minute movie. I refuse to take bathroom breaks while the movie's going.

Intermissions those are called.

CoCage:
Hell, almost everyone expects a stinger; even in non-Marvel movies. That is really annoying and needs to die now.

Second that. Apparently they even put an X-Men stinger in one of the Spiderman films. Didn't see it myself, because I turn the film off once the credits roll and don't care about whatever stingers might be there.

Johnny Novgorod:

Samtemdo8:

Johnny Novgorod:
The Irishman
Scorsese's best movie since The Departed (and Casino before that). It is simultaneously a return to form and also a reflexion on his filmography. It is "like" Goodfellas in that it is a period piece that is narrated by an outsider, over-the-hill gangster with a tone that suggests he's making the audience complicit. It boasts a huge character roster made up of Scorsese regulars and Sopranos regulars, spans decades and covers historical landmarks, and can go from home-movie conviviality to violence in a heartbeat.

The movie is also nothing like Goodfellas, and I think anybody going in wanting to see Goodfellas 2 is gonna be in for a disappointment. While the movie can naturally segue into humor at any time, it is very much a tragedy rather than a comedy. The movie doesn't jump around like Goodfellas does but tends to ruminate within the same set-piece. The camera movements that present situations in that smooth yet snappy here-you-go waiter-with-a-tray attitude are there, keeping the movie delightfully energized, but not in that wild, ranty Goodfellas way. And even at the height of Sheeran's rise-and-fall story the movie doesn't exactly glamorize the violence or the lifestyle. The prevailing mood is one of guilt, sorrow and bitter maturity. I enjoyed the hell out of it.

10/10

Sadly the movie is screening in a theater far away from my house or usual places I visit.

Looks like I have to wait until the Netflix screening next week.

Definitely recommend watching it in theaters if you can, but that goes more for the length of the movie (3 and a half hours!) and the enhancement of the overall experience rather than its spectacle. One of the best movies I've seen all year in theaters is Leap of Faith, which is "just" an interview of William Friedkin mixed in with some Exorcist footage. Some things just don't have the same spell to them even if you watch them on the biggest TV you can find.

Having said that I would've liked an interlude in a 210 minute movie. I refuse to take bathroom breaks while the movie's going.

So the movie is more akin to Raging Bull then Goodfellas.

The 6 films of the Sniper series are reasonably decent, though each is quite different to all the others.

EDIT: Oh, should say the first 6 films, apparently they made a 7th.

Samtemdo8:
So the movie is more akin to Raging Bull then Goodfellas.

It's got a little bit of both in it. Even if the script jumps around in time, imitating a stream-of-consciousness tall tale, it's too mournful and slow-paced to be "like" Goodfellas. And it's got a soulful, reckoning kind of vibe like Raging Bull but it's not quite like it either. I'm definitely rewatching it on Netflix once it's out there. I left the theater in a daze and it's making it hard to describe the movie retrospectively.

Thaluikhain:
Logan.

It's liked the makers took a hard look at the previous X-Men movies (and superhero films in general) and said "Actually, no, can we make a real movie instead? You know, like Blade runner or something?" And then quite a respectable job of it.

I wouldn't go so far as to label movies "real" or "not real" based off their origins, though I do sometimes make a distinction between "movies" and "cinema/films".
To me,Logan was so good because they made it as a detective noir/western/samurai movie that happened to have comic book characters.

I firmly believe that with a few (fairly) minor changes to the setting and characters and you could have an equally good western or samurai movie.

twistedmic:

Thaluikhain:
Logan.

It's liked the makers took a hard look at the previous X-Men movies (and superhero films in general) and said "Actually, no, can we make a real movie instead? You know, like Blade runner or something?" And then quite a respectable job of it.

I wouldn't go so far as to label movies "real" or "not real" based off their origins, though I do sometimes make a distinction between "movies" and "cinema/films".
To me,Logan was so good because they made it as a detective noir/western/samurai movie that happened to have comic book characters.

I firmly believe that with a few (fairly) minor changes to the setting and characters and you could have an equally good western or samurai movie.

Sure, but I'd not be surprised if I learnt that the makers had thought that way, at least during part of the process.

I don't see any reason why being a detective noir/western/samurai movie would make it good. They didn't make a rubbish film, but that's not due to the genre.

Thaluikhain:

I don't see any reason why being a detective noir/western/samurai movie would make it good. They didn't make a rubbish film, but that's not due to the genre.

I may not have articulated my meaning very well, so I'll try again.
When a movie seems content with being 'just a comic book movie' it won't have much staying power. It might be a good popcorn flick or a fun movie to watch with friends but it's not something that you'll watch more than once or twice. It will only be popular/relevant until the next sequel, and that's only if it makes enough money.

If a movie is [blank] genre that happens to be a comic book movie I feel like it will have more of an identity past being another in a line of sequels. The good comic book movies will still be good if you take out the comic book elements.
Ant-Man is a heist movie.
Winter Soldier is a spy thriller.
Guardians of the Galaxy is an outlaw movie.
Logan is a western.
Sin City is a noir anthology.

twistedmic:
When a movie seems content with being 'just a comic book movie' it won't have much staying power. It might be a good popcorn flick or a fun movie to watch with friends but it's not something that you'll watch more than once or twice. It will only be popular/relevant until the next sequel, and that's only if it makes enough money.

If a movie is [blank] genre that happens to be a comic book movie I feel like it will have more of an identity past being another in a line of sequels. The good comic book movies will still be good if you take out the comic book elements.

Ah, fair enough. I'd tend to agree with that, almost what I meant when I made the flippant comment about the makers deciding to make a real movie instead of a comic book one.

Xprimentyl:
Joker Wow. 10/10

I liked it too. Perhaps not "10/10", but suffice it to say I was very, very impressed by the direction they took it and the acting.

In my opinion trying to decide whether Phoenix or Ledger was the "better" Joker is an absolute mug's game. They're two very different Jokers, with different plot roles, in different Gothams and at different times in Batman's life - but as a headlining character, I thought Phoenix gave an absolutely exceptional performance. His "straight (but troubled) man succumbing to a world gone mad" story was absolutely believable, with no forced Jared Leto edginess in sight.

The only part I didn't really like was the final scene. I'm not AGAINST the idea of Joker killing civilians if, say, he was sufficiently sickened by the world to consider anybody complicit with the system as an enemy - but if that's the case, the film didn't establish it.

Good film.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here